|
Balboos wrote: I find the poll results interesting in that they lean heavily towards the maintainence of compatability. After all, incompatibility is a financial boon (or at least, job security) for most of us.
But actually, knowing around in eons old legacy application you have once ported from Win3.11/C to Win 95/Win32 and further on to NT4, W2K, XP and Vista can make you a living too.
A living without stupid youngsters from straight from the university who keep asking for patterns!
Don't need no bloody pattern!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I wonder how the survey would have turned out if we lived in a totally open-source world?
It would be more highly geared to the "Critical" option. OS upgrades never rarely break hardware compatibility and rarely break software compatibly.
John
|
|
|
|
|
New OS should inherit from CListCtrl
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with Microsoft Windows is that it is completely burdened by old systems. It would have been better to make a new start and have all old software running in a virtual machine.
Have a nice life!!
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea, but this may lead to the solution:
use virtual machines also for new systems, so updates will not mess up existing install...
C#, ASPX, SQL, novice to NHibernate
|
|
|
|
|
Expensive on licensing costs and VMs are not user friendly as of yet.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is obviously what MS is going to do...
And IMO this is a very good decision.
Make everything .NET and the rest works in a highly optimized VM of XP.
|
|
|
|
|
h32 wrote: And IMO this is a very good decision.
Make everything .NET and the rest works in a highly optimized VM of XP.
I personally really don't think this is a good decision. This means, that Windows will be slow form the very bottom...
|
|
|
|
|
Remember all those useful XP Apps / Games that refused to run on Vista... ?
I think you see my point 
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
Never had any problems...
Were they really XP apps or were already compatible on XP?
I never had any problems with native XP apps or drivers on my Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
Reelix wrote: Remember all those useful XP Apps / Games that refused to run on Vista... ?
No. Not a single one.
None of them were worth the brain-real-estate to remember them...
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
... the old app relies on a bug/flaw/whatever that the new version fixes.
Or does things it shouldn't.
Or is written in VB.
(I'm not sure I needed the joke icon, but I decided to play it safe.)
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine what goes into getting those Windows 3.1 applications working in Windows Server 2003 (32-bit), and all the applications written for the operating systems in between. This is why Windows isn't a slim OS. It's got too much of the past brought into the present.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything.
I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, design is everything...
See J2EE apps. They run in an app server. Your J2ee program is free from calling the OS directly. You program against an API. The app server (like jBoss) is responsible of running your app and to call special OS functions...
If programs in .NET would be coded so, changes in OS would mean changing (fixing) the app. server...and everything would work fine (so instead of changing/fixing tons of applications, you only change one)...
C#, ASPX, SQL, novice to NHibernate
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't know the answer.
Is it just Windows, or does Linux break past things? OS/2? OS/400? UNIX?
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Que? Linux OS2? Are these recipe acronyms?
This affects all operating systems. Windows 95 2000, MsDOS: and even Vista! 
|
|
|
|
|
peterwithaP wrote: Windows 95 2000, MsDOS: and even Vista!
Those are all MS Operating Systems. Is MS the only one that sucks at this? There are others out there. Are the others as bad?
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
No, others are not as bad.
SUN gives an guarantee, your binary will run on future versions of solaris.
Issues with desktop's are as bad, but you can run old desktop variants on the new system, so it does not hurt as much.
|
|
|
|
|
I am having the concept based on Microsoft Product Lifecycle. The amount of time a product is supported should be going in sync with the operating system lifecycle to ensure that there are lesser number of customer issues and breakdowns reported.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think every company wants to re-certify every app every time MS dumps another OS?
Whether "dump" means "fields", or "EOLs", is an open question.
I have a lot of money invested in apps that I do not want to continue to repurchase for every late OS rev. Sometimes I can stick with the old OS, sometimes I cannot. I appreciate the bloated side of Windows that lets me continue to run them. That part of the pain is worth the money I save, and the access I still have to software that is no longer supported in any form.
Learn to write self marginalizing code!
Call 1-888-BAD-CODE
------------------
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
|
|
|
|
|
RichardM1 wrote: Sometimes I can stick with the old OS, sometimes I cannot.
In what cases can't you?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is the most practical solution, a rolling window in which OS and apps. work together.
Deciding on how big that window is is a tough one though. 5 years? 10 years? 7 years?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a physical limit to the amount of backwards compatibility that can be effectively put into a system. Software expires. Software that is no longer maintained should expire. If your software is broken by a OS upgrade, you should upgrade your software.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: Backwards compatibility is a bane
Not strictly. There should be a stipulated period till which the backward compatibility has to be maintained. Everyone and every enterprise does not have an infinite budget to upgrade their software as and when it is released.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
I don't update an OS unless I want to update the software. I had a windows 95/98 box running for years without an upgrade because the software was designed for it.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
